Manhattan Club Lawsuit

How much do you expect to save.? Have you even considered the cost of union contracts and the high cost of maintenance in NYC? The MC is in a unique, wonderful, and very expensive location.

William,

I am not so naïve as to think the maintenance fees will drop to 1991 levels. However, if we can agree that the current management has been abusing its position, then legitimate management should be able to reduce fees by 10-20%. Even if the fees do not go down, a reserve should be created. For comparison, look at the Phillips Club at Lincoln Center. Granted, the Phillips sells 1/8 interests rather than weeks, but a time share in Manhattan can and should be better managed.

nathanz2 wrote:

The "AOD" is up on the website of the NYAG. (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/manhattan-club-aod_0.pdf) It contains the details of the settlement, which according to my quick read, breaks it up over the next 2 years (50% now /25% in a year/25% in two years). The first payment is based on how many days in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 paid-up owners were unable to use, and the final two payments are will be made to paid-up owners based on the proportion of their maintenance fees (for those who paid their maintenance fees) to the total maintenance fees charged. It's all in paragraph 69. So half of it has to do with compensation for loss of use and half of it for overcharges to owners who continued to pay their maintenance while others did not. There is nothing here for any other losses, real or imagined. Anyone who stopped paying their fees will not qualify for the settlement. But I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps Jeff can impose one more time on his legal consultant and ask him to interpret for us.

Thank you for sharing this information!

.

Hi Alex, I am interested in joining the class action suit agains the Manhattan Club. Please tell me what needs to be done so I can join in. Thanks, Marie Greenberg

im interested in law suit

New people: please take the time to read the last 15-20 pages of this forum. There is no class action lawsuit and never was. There is a settlement.

Does anyone participating on this Board have any information or idea about who might be the "TMC Purchaser" referenced in section 62?

Here is the link to the settlement doc. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/manhattan-club-aod_0.pdf

kevin631 wrote:

nathanz2 wrote:

The "AOD" is up on the website of the NYAG. (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/manhattan-club-aod_0.pdf) It contains the details of the settlement, which according to my quick read, breaks it up over the next 2 years (50% now /25% in a year/25% in two years). The first payment is based on how many days in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 paid-up owners were unable to use, and the final two payments are will be made to paid-up owners based on the proportion of their maintenance fees (for those who paid their maintenance fees) to the total maintenance fees charged. It's all in paragraph 69. So half of it has to do with compensation for loss of use and half of it for overcharges to owners who continued to pay their maintenance while others did not. There is nothing here for any other losses, real or imagined. Anyone who stopped paying their fees will not qualify for the settlement. But I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps Jeff can impose one more time on his legal consultant and ask him to interpret for us.

Thank you for sharing this information!

I also reviewed the documents on the NYS Attorney General's webpage. This is my own interpretation of the settlement.

As mentioned it appears to me that the Manhattan Club owners that continued to pay the maintenance fees and were not able to obtain any reservations will be eligible for the majority of the settlement. The remaining amount of the restitution will be distributed to all owners that were up to date on their maintenance fees.This remaining amount is designated for the additional amounts that owners were charged due to non payments of owners.

RESTITUTION-PAGE 14 (NYS ATTORNEY GENERAL WEBSITE)

1. Manhattan Club has 15 days to pay 3,250,000 as part of the restitution after the monies that were frozen are released.

2.Manhattan Club has one year from the anniversary date of the agreement to pay 1,625,000.

3. Manhattan Club has two years from the anniversary date of the agreement to pay 1,625,000.

This is my understanding of the settlement Everyone is encouraged to review this important information themselves.

CALL THE NY AG's chief enforcement officer, Louis Solomon! I told him TMC had not skipped a beat, that I received an invoice TEN months early and he was not happy!

212-416-8956

William, You are entitled to your opinion, but have you given any thought to all the owners, who have not been able to use their units, due to management, denying them occupancy, renting the same unit for the same time, double dipping, and getting away with it. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE ALLOWED BY ANNOUNCING THAT MANAHATTAN CLUB IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE, but what good is beauty if you are not able to use it. If all owners would stop paying anything, the cash flow to the corrupt management would cease, and we could finally resolve this deceit, and corrupt operations of the owners, and management company. Praising the merits, defeats all of our efforts that you condone this business practice, at the cost of us owners who are not able to use what we paid for. It says to me that stealing is okay with you as long as it allows you to use your unit. These comments are not acceptable, and I am sure of everyone who reads them, and is being held hostage of using what we have paid for. RETHINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

I didn't say TMC was a beautiful place. I said it was "IN A unique, wonderful and expensive" place--Manhattan. I guess it is ok to speak if I agree with you. When you speak, please quote correctly.

henryd30 wrote:

William, You are entitled to your opinion, but have you given any thought to all the owners, who have not been able to use their units, due to management, denying them occupancy, renting the same unit for the same time, double dipping, and getting away with it. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE ALLOWED BY ANNOUNCING THAT MANAHATTAN CLUB IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE, but what good is beauty if you are not able to use it. If all owners would stop paying anything, the cash flow to the corrupt management would cease, and we could finally resolve this deceit, and corrupt operations of the owners, and management company. Praising the merits, defeats all of our efforts that you condone this business practice, at the cost of us owners who are not able to use what we paid for. It says to me that stealing is okay with you as long as it allows you to use your unit. These comments are not acceptable, and I am sure of everyone who reads them, and is being held hostage of using what we have paid for. RETHINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

Kevin/Chris, from the interpretation I'm reading; the 1st pay out is to be divided between owners (in good standing) whom were unable to book their preferred nights and thus lost nights. What perplexes me about this is, it means owners who 'CHOOSE' to loss their nights, instead of those of us who rearranged our lives, accepting some "'OFF"' days instead, are not included??? Secondly, how can then possibly know, who did not get wanted, preferred & even needed nights? Some owners choose not to just throw away unaffordable, paid maintenance fees. For example, I have a grown child in NYC, who's birthday is on a very prime date. I have not been able to get that exact date in years. I usually end up visiting for a few hours on a weekday which is available. NOT EXACTLY BY CHOICE. If I'm reading your initial interpretation correctly, I'd see this as quite discriminatory.

Also has anyone seen or read any indications of payouts IN RATIO TO; half-shares-split/whole-week-shares/2+weeks-ownership & Metropolitan- Suites/Jr.1-bdrm/Executive 1-bdrm/PH, or the many other combos of ownership, as we all paid different MF's. ???

LC121: The MC is almost entirely “flexible interests” or first come, first served, so with 15,000 owners, 300 rooms and 52 weeks, the odds are very low that anyone can get their first choice of week to stay. The problem I see is that the reservation system was so backward and non transparent that it was easily manipulated by management As far as your type of ownership question goes, it’s irrelevant. An entitled night not used is a night not used, regardless of where it came from; and the year you paid your MF is the year you get your comp, which I calculate to be $100 or so. (1.6 million / 15,000 owners)

nathanz2, What I meant is, we/they keep referring to compensation for owners who were not able to use their time, because they couldn't get their wanted reservations. Those owners 'CHOOSE' to lose their days in lieu of accepting alternative dates. OTHERS were also, not able to get wanted/needed reservations, but accepted having to completely change by accepting to book alternative dates, rather then throwing away their paid MF's. There is no way for TMC to tell the difference. So, does that mean only those who 'CHOOSE' to book nothing, will be included in the 1st group compensated? (That will be discriminatory!)

LC121 I just want people to be pragmatic. No one is getting back what they paid 5, 10 or 20 years ago. There are not going to be dozens of different classes of owners based on how they value their personal inconvenience and real damages. There is just one settlement and no one is going to be happy with it. But it’s already been reached, signed and sealed by the AG. No one is reopening it. So we just have to bite the bullet, find closure, and work with management and the AG to create an owner elected board to govern the the MC on behalf of its owners -us -and restore value to our interests in the marketplace. Here’s hoping!

Agree, this is why I am interested to know about the "TMC Purchaser" referenced in the AG document?

The TMC purchaser referred to in the AOD is a placeholder, a role to be filled by a firm yet to be determined. If we’re lucky, it will be a Marriot or a Wyndham; it may be a lesser known firm. But whoever it is will make their business decision based on the profitability of that proposition. What I don’t understand is why the language refers to a purchaser at all. After a timeshare sponsor exits the scenario, most timeshares are owned by the individual owners who elect a board to either self manage (impractical for a property the size of the MC) or retain a management company, subject to board supervision. In that case, the “TMC purchaser” is purchasing the right to manage, for some period of years, not the TMC itself. I always assumed (probably to my regret) that ownership of a TMC interest included an undivided share of the TMC real property. Does anyone have a factual underderstanding here?

As I opined earlier...no significant dollars for any of us...we are stuck with the existing contracts, maintenance fees, etc. Why would anyone buy a one week/year one-bedroom unit at what we paid for it (I paid $20K+ for "NYC real estate"), AND be willing to pay $2500/year in maintainence fees? Especially when you can get the same room on Hotels.com for $300/night?

I am looking forward to "selling" (most likely giving back) my unit at first opportunity and getting out of this "investment"!! Again, my opinion, any "restitution" in real $$$ is frankly delusional...

Prices for TMC on hotels.com are no longer $300 per night. A Junior Suite is listed at $589 per night for Oct 18-21 2017 and $441 (non refundable) from Nov 8-11. Also, the Wednesday to Saturdays in between weren't even available. I'd just like to have mine gone so I don't have to worry about it anymore and then I could travel anywhere else in the world.

nathanz2 wrote:

The TMC purchaser referred to in the AOD is a placeholder, a role to be filled by a firm yet to be determined. If we’re lucky, it will be a Marriot or a Wyndham; it may be a lesser known firm. But whoever it is will make their business decision based on the profitability of that proposition. What I don’t understand is why the language refers to a purchaser at all. After a timeshare sponsor exits the scenario, most timeshares are owned by the individual owners who elect a board to either self manage (impractical for a property the size of the MC) or retain a management company, subject to board supervision. In that case, the “TMC purchaser” is purchasing the right to manage, for some period of years, not the TMC itself. I always assumed (probably to my regret) that ownership of a TMC interest included an undivided share of the TMC real property. Does anyone have a factual underderstanding here?